The first in a series of reports exploring the ramifications of the controversial Colorado state ballot measure.

"States rights" has been the battle cry of modern-day social conservatives over the last 50 years to oppose everything from racial desegregation and gay marriage to gun control. But no issue has raised culture warrior hackles more than abortion.

Less well-known than the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling on Webster v. Reproductive Health Services set the stage for a series of state skirmishes on restricting abortion and influencing public opinion through constitutional amendments, efforts that continue to this day.

Webster is a Missouri state law that restricts the use of state funding, employees and facilities to provide abortions.

However, the real test lies in the language. The law added a strict Christian construct to the preamble of the Missouri constitution -- that life begins at conception and therefore unborn children have protectable rights.

Now 20 years after Webster became law, a similar initiative is being attempted in Colorado through a proposed ballot measure to amend the state constitution:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, only Missouri has successfully added religiously inspired conception language to its constitution in an attempt to negatively sway public opinion on abortion. Despite decades of trying, no other state has succeeded with this controversial approach. Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Oregon, Tennessee and South Carolina attempted either legislatively or via citizen initiative to codify personhood for fertilized eggs but every effort was soundly defeated, reports Dionne Scott of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

To Anita Allen, a University of Pennsylvania professor in both law and philosophy, states run into trouble with these efforts when they attempt to apply the conception language.

"The Court has emphasized that Roe v. Wade implies no limitation on the authority of a state to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion," says Allen. "The preamble can be read simply to express a value judgment. A state is free through a referendum, preamble or law to state that life begins at conception but they don't have the constitutional right to regulate abortion or any other practice."

Supporters of Colorado's proposed ballot measure argue on the Colorado for Equal Rights Web site that "the simplicity of the text of this initiative speaks for itself."

However, Allen, an expert on privacy laws and ethics, isn't convinced that the measure is not simply a ploy to avoid the much more difficult persuasion campaign against birth control, emergency contraception, in-vitro fertilization and, ultimately, abortion itself. That debate has largely been long lost in the court of public opinion. A November 2006 Ciruli Associates poll reported that 56 percent of Colorado voters are pro-choice, a figure on par with the rest of the nation.

Thus, it would appear Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere soon.

"It's a strategy," says Allen, of the proposed amendment. "And certainly a moralist could say, 'I really want to believe that from the moment of conception life begins and that that life deserves some legal protection.'

"But there are huge numbers of fertilized eggs that don't ever implant and implanted eggs that spontaneously abort. Plus, it raises the whole question about eggs that are fertilized outside the human body."

It's those not-so-simple questions that has some longtime anti-abortion activist groups lending less-than-tepid support.

The Colorado Catholic Conference refuted statements by Colorado for Equal Rights that the state's three bishops endorsed the proposal, according to a February press account. Further, Jennifer Kraska, executive director of the conference, raised concerns about the ballot group's structure, finances and tactics in she wholly dismissed any possibility of support by the Catholic Church.

Also notably absent is Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based multi-million dollar ministry and catalyst for much of the evangelical culture wars over the last three decades.

The prime backers of the ballot measure, namely American Right to Life Action, have a long and ugly history of calling out its putative allies. One spat last year resulted in National Right to Life yanking the charter of the state affiliate for attacking Rev. James Dobson in newspaper ads for not being anti-abortion enough. From the ashes of Colorado Right to Life rose the hard core American Right to Life Action, which is heavily engaged in petition-circulating efforts for the group Colorado for Equal Rights.

The splintering of what one would assume are allied groups over this ballot measure comes as no surprise to Clemson political science professor Laura Olson, an expert on religion and politics.

"Colorado is a real locus of religious right activism," states Olson. "There's lot of folks who are conservative evangelicals -- you would think that this is a core issue. If this initiative is having trouble getting support, I think it's a real commentary on how evangelicals are a lot more politically diverse than they're given credit for being. This is not the kind of tactic that a lot of people are going to sign on to, quite literally."

And that dissension among the ranks of conservative evangelical Christian and Catholic leadership leads to a whole host of questions -- namely, what if this thing does pass, then what?

Olson believes that the end point -- a total restriction on abortion -- isn't the real goal no matter how clever the political strategy may be to push for zygote civil rights.

"One of the things about the abortion issue more than any of the other culture wars issues that's been so interesting is that both sides get so fired up," she says. "But I don't think either side wants things to change in any real perceptible way. It's a mobilizing tool."

And high-intensity fundraising and voter turnout is what fertilized-egg activists will be doing leading up to the November election.

But beyond the boots-on-the-ground tactics, Olson raises an interesting analogy in the national 2004 push to pass state Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) as a strategy to for getting re-election support for President Bush from anti-gay marriage, religiously motivated voters." It was the perfect get-out-the-vote strategy for conservative candidates/causes up and down the ticket by pairing an important federal race with a red-meat state ballot measure for the GOP faithful to gnaw on.

So in the context of the "fertilized egg as a person" amendment, if the Colorado Secretary of State approves the measure for the ballot this year, will those highly motivated "values voters" sit out the presidential election or will they if not enthusiastically, at least consistently, pull the lever for the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, a candidate who has had a great deal of difficulty making inroads with the conservative religious right?

Which seemingly puts the spotlight squarely on Colorado this cycle -- a traditional political swing state with a boisterous evangelical activist movement countered by an equally raucous libertarianesque civil liberties streak. Couple those forces with what is likely to be a very close 2008 presidential election, in addition to several other highly partisan state races and ballot measures, that will have the hard-core politicos salivating in the voting booth.

Durham's book, "The Lolita Effect," examines the motives behind the media's sexualization of tween girls and how they are exploiting young girls for profit. For example, at Abercrombie & Fitch, little girls were sold thong underwear tagged with the phrases "eye candy" and "wink wink." In Britain, preschoolers could learn to strip with their very own Peekaboo Pole-Dancing Kits -- complete with kiddie garter belts and play money.

Durham advocates healthy and progressive concepts of girls' sexuality, but criticizes the media for its sexual representations. Studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation and other research organizations show that sexual content aimed at children has increased steadily since the 1990s, Durham said. Times were prosperous, Britney Spears emerged as the sexy schoolgirl on MTV, and tweens had plenty of disposable income -- a perfect alignment for marketers trying to expand into a new demographic. By 2007, 8- to 12-year-olds' consumer spending was $170 billion worldwide, according to the market research firm Euromonitor.

Interview with Gigi Durham, author of "The Lolita Effect":

Iowa Independent: I assume the book's title is alluding to Nabokov's "Lolita." Given the predatory relationship that evolves between the protagonist and the nymphet, Lolita, in the book, why did you title your book, "The Lolita Effect"?

Durham: Yes, the book is an allusion to Nabokov's "Lolita," which is written from the predator's point of view, and he sees Lolita as the one who is bringing it on. All predators do that, so all of the abusiveness in the novel and the empathy for Lolita is lost in the way we now talk about girls. In that sense, Lolita is a tragic figure. That's why I'm using that title, because we all think we know what it means. To me Lolita represents an effect of our culture and our media that positions girls in that way. Of course girls are transitioning into adulthood and are interested in sex, but what 12-year-old girl would initiate or knowingly enter into those kind of relationships? You can't pin it on the kid.

Iowa Independent: So does your book look at the other end of the sexualization and marketing of tween girls and examine the role of men?

Durham: It looks at all aspects regarding the marketing of this type of sexuality and the narrow, restrictive form of sexuality that's commercially driven to young girls. But it also looks at the impacts, such as the rise in child-sex trafficking and child pornography and how this is being legitimated by the mainstream media and the impact on girls who are not learning about sex in healthy, progressive natural, normal ways. They are not being given this safe transition into adulthood, where they have good information about sexuality and they can make good choices themselves.

They are not getting good information from the media, and they are not getting this information from anywhere else either, because we are so skittish about dealing with these issues. As a result, we have really high rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world, twice that of the U.K. and eight times that of Japan. Moreover, one in four girls in this country has had a sexually transmitted disease (STD). We are not doing it right; we are not giving these girls what they need.

Iowa Independent: On the flip side, do you think marketers are targeting adult males and their desires or fantasies about the Lolita persona?

Durham: I totally do think so. Because not only are they marketing to children, but at the same time there is this other effect where adults are exposed to these same kinds of images, in particular adult men, subsequently giving these men the implicit idea that these young girls are sexual objects -- which I think is really problematic. The effect is an implicit or tacit support of those ideas.

Iowa Independent: Putting this in a recent context, what are your thoughts about the explicit photographs of 15-year-old Miley Cyrus in the latest issue of "Vanity Fair"?

Durham: For me, the very fact that this generated so much public controversy shows that this is a really important issue. In a way I was glad. This points to how we tend to polarize girls' sexuality in our society. There's no middle ground, we either repress girls' sexuality or we exploit it for profit. The big outrage that this girl is a pure, innocent and chaste girl is a bit ridiculous. At the same time she is very young, so I don't think it is OK that her body is on display for this voyeuristic gaze for commercial profit. The issue is more complex than the way it has been presented; it's not an either-or issue.

Iowa Independent: Do you think marketers are consciously branding female innocence and purity with the intent of eventually using this branding to exploit the sexualization aspect of their marketing strategy?

Durham: It almost does seem that way, doesn't it? Britney Spears took this same route. She started out a Mouseketeer on the "New Mickey Mouse Club" and then she became a sex symbol. They start out innocent, then overnight they become sex symbols and there is no transition, which is not good for girls, who need an extended time to understand and cope with their own sexuality as it develops. In a way, it's a social trauma.

Iowa Independent: What role do these girls' parents play in this process, especially those who allow their daughters to be exploited by the media, especially when it turns out they have no control over how they are exploited, whether it be a parent, producer or media conglomerate?

Durham: I thought it was really clear in the Miley Cyrus case that there was a group of adults that were using her body for their own purposes. There were adults there including her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, photographer Annie Leibovitz and her handlers, who were making her decision for her. It came out later that Miley was ashamed and embarrassed about it, and if this is true, then it indicates that she didn't perceive she had any control in the situation. We want girls to make intentional, good decisions about themselves and their sexual development.

So I do think parents are important, and this is one of the reasons I wrote the book. I want parents to have a tool for coping with this, for their kids are being assaulted by media images from such an early age. The book provides some good strategies for kids and parents on how to talk about sexuality without it feeling like such a difficult thing to talk about.

Iowa Independent: We can keep criticizing the media for helping perpetuate this problem through mass marketing and consumerism, but how do we get them to change their behaviors? How can we address the demand-side --the boy's/men's role in -- of the equation?

Durham: Boys are getting the same messages from the media, especially what defines masculinity and femininity, so we need to have more co-ed discussions that involve teachers, parents and counselors helping facilitate a healthy discussion about sexuality.

A lot of boys are very thoughtful and see girls as more than eye candy, so it's important to bring them into the discussion as well.

And then there is the push back against the marketers. Parents need to continue to put pressure on marketers and hold them responsible for what they are selling. There have been a number of products that have been removed from the shelves because of these efforts.

Iowa Independent: What about recent video games like "Grand Theft Auto" that are not only violent but that treat women as sex objects while simultaneously degrading them, or as is the case in "Grand Theft Auto," you can kill them after having sex with them?

Durham: Not only are these games incredibly violent, but all the women in these games are sex workers. They are all strippers or prostitutes. The games are rated "M" and are intended for adult audiences but of course that never matters, because 13- and 14-year-old boys are the ones that tend to play these kinds of games. Again, I think boys need more media literacy and education and need to hear adults they respect being critical of these issues, then they will begin to understand why our value system doesn't appreciate those representations.

Nikki, 14 years old, writes:

Many women don't understand the importance of the "morning after pill." It's not so that you can do what you want when you want. It's for that time that something goes horribly wrong. Some people think that EC is a horrible thing, yet what if a horrible thing happened to you? What if you were raped by a man you didn't know, and ended up pregnant? Would you want to keep the baby? What if you had a disease, and there was a chance that the baby could get it too? Would you want your child to grow up in either situation? In one, be normal, yet have no idea who her father is? Or in the other, have a child who couldn't do the things a mother would hope to watch? Your child may never walk, or never talk. The pill should be used in those cases where something horrible has happened. Yes, it is true that not all are using it in the "correct manner." But should those people keep those who truly need it, those who would never think to use it unless something bad were to happen, from using it? No, they should not. If you still disagree - just think, what if it were you?

For more information on Plan B, visit the web site of The Pharmacy Access Partnership.